Mary and her children

[hvg3akaek]

There were multiple people with the same name. See my earlier posts dealing with this (1st or 2nd page), which have yet to be argued against.

But this doesn’t take away the fact that the Jews, who lived during the time of Jesus, believed in this spiritual place called Abraham’s bosom.

There were Jews at that time also believed that there was no afterlife, or that it was okay to divorce your wife if she burnt your dinner, or that helping someone else out on the sabbath was a gross violation of Law, and yo should be killed.

However, Abraham’s bosom was believed, by the jews, to be a place within Hadies (hell).

hades =/= hell
hades = afterlife.

it was ‘heaven and hell’ combined in one idea. the place of the dead.

I don’t see any way of escaping this, except, perhaps, to deny that such a place exists at all. However, here, one would have to prove that Jesus did not believe in such a place, and that would, in my opinion, be next to impossible to prove.

no less impossible that proving Jesus did believe in it. And, the whole not-specifically-talking-about-it does suggest that He didn’t. Not proof, mind you

I’m not sure what you mean by this; but, yes, there are different people named James in the scriptures. There is the son of Zebbede,there is also the apostle called James the less, and then, there’s the Lord’s brother. I believe the apostle, James the less, is the Lord’s brother. According to tradition, they both were martyred in the exact same way.

There was a lot of martyring going on for the early Christians, sadly enough.

However, there were brothers of Jesus named, and the brothers of Jesus were not believers by John 7. Moreso, the brothers of Jesus were outside, not within, where the disciples would have been.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Then what church is? Your church?

therein lies a difference of perspective. Clearly there was not just one church (Revelation 1 names 7), as the very word means “mob” or “group of people”.

So, there was not one ‘church’ as we use the term today, as referring to congregation. There is one church in meaning “all of God’s people”. Across the world, and through time.

Now, I have to ask you - as I am not Roman Catholic, and thus not part of the Roman Catholic church, does that mean I am not part of God’s church? Nor part of the Body of Christ? Am I unsaved?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you believe them literally? Do you believe that they had to become cannibals to live? And that now Jesus’ body is no longer here, no one can be raised up?

Or have you missed the rest of the situation:

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.

HVG-

If you believe that we engage in cannibalism, please begin a new thread and we will discuss this error there.

Thanks. :tiphat:

 

[hvg3akaek]

Not if both spouses are in agreement.

This really is inconceivable to you, isn’t it?

It is definitely inconceivable to Paul. Anything outside a break for prayer was too much by his words!

So I would say, yes, it is still wrong, by Paul’s words, and thus God’s words, for two people whom are married to adhere to a vow of celibacy.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 “brothers” in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother.

Problem: after Jesus. Jesus clearly changed the meaning of the term, when the Jews outside applied it to His blood siblings, and He applied it to His followers. Christians, following Jesus and not the Jews, now do likewise.

Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist.

Not only does this not make it right, but it does not make it the case for Mary.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Jerry was married at 1pm. An “instant” reading of “until his wedding day” would mean that for the 13 hours prior ti his wedding, Jerry was actually already married…

The time frame in this phrase is ‘day’ not hour.

An “instant” reading of this one would mean that at 11:59:59am, she had food on her fork, poised at her mouth…or some such scene.

Why not at 12, she got up, went to the kitchen, opened the fridge, grabbed some stuff to eat, then made herself some lunch, and ate. Food only entered her mouth at ~12:23:47pm.

Noon is usually meant for the entire hour.

Or even better - Hank couldn’t see until he found his glasses. The mere presence of them allows him to see!

Found/Put on - a minor difference in semantics that doesn’t change the example.

I will happily agree that it does not mean the above

Well, I guess that is something.

There are a mere 401 uses of the word “until” in the NIV. (yes, that was sarcasm )

A quick survey of them is below:

#1 - Genesis 3:19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

=> Clearly, we will not be sweating with our brow to eat our food once we are dead?

#100 - Joshua 7:13
"Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, 'Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: That which is devoted is among you, O Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove it.

=> Could they stand against their enemies afterwards?

#200 - 2 Chronicles 9:6
But I did not believe what they said until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed, not even half the greatness of your wisdom was told me; you have far exceeded the report I heard.

=> He believed after he came and saw, yes?

#300 - Matthew 2:13
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

=> When they were told, they didn’t stay longer, did they?

#400 - Revelation 20:3
He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

=> This one is even answered for us - “after that…”

None of these disprove the biblical usage of until and some even help prove it.

Anyway, form my very brief survey of the verses, I did not find one use of “until” that matched your suggestion. Yes, I only looked at…5 out of 401, but I did just grab some every now and then. They are definitely there. Should we go through them all?

If you want to take the time and reference each usage of the word - have fun.

 

[hvg3akaek]

There is no ‘earthly Jesus’ and human form. Jesus if FULLY man and fully God.

Indeed He is - but was He always like that? Was He a human before ~0AD? Was He a human when He created all things? (Colossians 1:16)

Philippians 2:6-7
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

How could Jesus “make Himself nothing”, or ‘take the nature of a servant’, or be “made in human likeness”, if He was always like that?

THEREFORE

A = B
C = D(A)
…C = D(B)

Jesus = God
Mary = Mother of Jesus
Therefore Mary = Mother of God

Ah, except that

E = B
F = B
…C =/= D(E)
…C =/= D(F)

…C =/= D(B)

The Father = God
The Spirit = God
Mary =/= Mother of God the Father
Mary =/= Mother of the Holy Spirit

therefore Mary =/= Mother of God.

Mary is the mother of Jesus, but only inasmuch of his earthly presence, for He was around before her - He even created her, along with everything else that was created.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I found these interesting:

Commentary from drbo.org on Matthew 1:25:

“Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.

And from a homily by Saint John Chrysostom:

And when he had taken her, “he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.” He has here used the word “till,” not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word,“till” ? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said,“The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.” Genesis 8:7 And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture says, "From age until age You are,"not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, "In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,"it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves you to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for you to learn of Him, this He Himself has said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for you to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord John 19:27 commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying,“For neither did His brethren believe in Him.”

The whole article can be read here.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

therefore Mary =/= Mother of God.

since…Mary = Mother of Jesus
than…Jesus =/= God

 

[victus]

therein lies a difference of perspective. Clearly there was not just one church (Revelation 1 names 7), as the very word means “mob” or “group of people”.

The number 7 in the Book of Revelation, does it not symbolize fullness and completeness?

 

[hvg3akaek]

The number 7 in the Book of Revelation, does it not symbolize fullness and completeness?

So there were only allowed to be 7 churches? The next one planted was heathen and heretical?

 

[victus]

So there were only allowed to be 7 churches? The next one planted was heathen and heretical?

No, it shows the Church as a whole, one.

 

[Bishopite]

therein lies a difference of perspective. Clearly there was not just one church (Revelation 1 names 7), as the very word means “mob” or “group of people”.

So, there was not one ‘church’ as we use the term today, as referring to congregation. There is one church in meaning “all of God’s people”. Across the world, and through time.

Now, I have to ask you - as I am not Roman Catholic, and thus not part of the Roman Catholic church, does that mean I am not part of God’s church? Nor part of the Body of Christ? Am I unsaved?

You are holding others to a standard which you don’t want to keep yourself by posting on subjects other than what the subject thread indicates.

 

[YADA]

**hvg3akaek, **

Your responses do not take into account that there is in Jewish culture [and many other ancient cultures] a tradition of living a celebate like dedicated to the service of the Lord/ We hae the same today in the many religious vocations like the poriesthood but also including religious orders; nuns, sisters, brothers, and or monks. Also there have always been people who have chosen to live a chaste life and some of those have lived it within the confines of maried life.

from the book of Numbers Chapter 30 Concsecrated life by both an un-married woman and a married woman: In this passage you will see that a woman can in fact e married and yet remain a virgin in the Jewish tradition:

When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered.
4 "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, 5 if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. 6 But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the LORD releases her from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval. 7 "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, 8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. 9 But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the LORD releases her from it. 10 The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, or any pledge to which such a woman binds herself, is valid. 11 2 "If it is in her husband’s house that she makes a vow or binds herself under oath to a pledge, 12 and her husband learns of it yet says nothing to express to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. 13 But if on the day he learns of them her husband annuls them, then whatever she has expressly promised in her vow or in her pledge becomes null and void; since her husband has annulled them, the LORD releases her from them. 14 “Any vow or any pledge that she makes under oath to mortify herself, her husband can either allow to remain valid or render null and void. 15 But if her husband, day after day, says nothing at all to her about them, he thereby allows as valid any vow or any pledge she has made; he has allowed them to remain valid, because on the day he learned of them he said nothing to her about them. 16 3 If, however, he countermands them some time after he first learned of them, he is responsible for her guilt.” 17 These are the statutes which the LORD prescribed through Moses concerning the relationship between a husband and his wife, as well as between a father and his daughter while she is still a maiden in her father’s house.

Also, in a secular sense many people, male and female choose to live celebrate lives, some as singles and some as married. My grandmother, a widow with children married a man who needed round the clock nursing care. She needed a home and sustenance for her children. early 1900’s few options…it was not appropriate for an unmarried woman to live with an unmarried man, they wed…it was a marriage of convenience.

I had a friend who fell in love with a paraplegic and married, knowing full well what she was entering into…for her the love and companionship she gained was more than compensation…

You down play another post that discussed Joseph and would he not be awed and reserved about entering into sexual relations with the woman who had been chosen to bear the God-Man Jesus…I think a healthy “fear of the Lord” would have been rofoundly in Joseph’s mind each and every day. Care of Mary and this infant son, identified as the “God with us” [Emmanuel], the Messaih would have consumed him.

The media is seductive in selling sex…many for religious reasons, personal reasons, reasons related to need and/or circumstance live lives of celebacy

 

[Randy_Carson]

:clapping:

 

[cor]

However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends… . .

Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: “Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins.” That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term " adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

Thanks for posting this from Jason Evert, especially this last paragraph. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[mayra_hart]

But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin."
Jerome,The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius,21(A.D. 383),in NPNF2,VI:344
i hope my fundamentalist friend this will open your mind and his heart.

 

[mayra_hart]

But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin."
Jerome,The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius,21(A.D. 383),in NPNF2,VI:344 i hope this will help you to open your mind my fundamentalist friend.

 

[clmowry]

As scripture is not explict on the subject neither position can be in direct conflict with scripture.

Only one position however can be true.

Chuck

OK then, how about:

[hvg3’s] understanding of Mary is in direct conflict with Scripture?

or:

[the] understanding [that] Mary [was only a virgin until (some time) after giving birth to Jesus] is in direct conflict with Scripture?

 

[ccfbob]

New Article a MUST READ for all on this posting.
catholicexchange.com/node/61135
Enjoy.

:tiphat:

 

[epostle]

According to Mosaic law, the penalty for a woman to have sex with a man who was not the father of her legitimate child is death by stoning.

To argue that Mary had other biological children outside of the sacred covenant God himself established with Mary demands that

1. Mary be in violation of the law, or
2. that her relationship with God is the same as with any human ‘husband’, making her a polygamist.

Both options are unbiblical, and incomprehensible. People who believe such man-made nonsense are in anti-church cults who are in rebellion even with the reformers. They are incapable of identifying their love for their own mothers as a parallel to the love Christ had for his mother. Their faith is dead, or dying.

Jesus said, For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ Matthew 15:4

Rev 12:15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth.
17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war ON THE REST OF HER OFFSPRING, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea…

Who could these OFFSPRING be? Ever commentator worth his salt will tell you that these offspring are the Church. How did Our Blessed Mom become the Mother of the Church?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

God said “woman” in Genesis 3:15, and He said “woman” in Rev. 12: >> The only two places in scripture where you have a woman and a serpent. Genesis and Revelation, the beginning and the end of the Bible.

God said “woman” at the Wedding of Cana, and He said “woman” while dying on the cross. The beginning and the end of his of His earthly ministry.

The experiences of the “Beloved Disciple” (BD) were the focus of John’s Gospel. He is an ‘everyman’ character. St. John’s Gospel is told in such a way that the reader can identify himself with the BD and is meant to see the story of Jesus from the BD’s perspective. Whatever is addressed to the BD is addressed to the reader. It makes John’s gospel unique to the other gospels.

So we have established that:

1. Mary is the Mother of Jesus
2. Whose children are the Church that keeps the commandments AND honors her Son
3. Who himself explicitly designated her as the Mother of his disciples.

Mary having other biological children speaks evil of Our Blessed Mom, will eventually kill your faith, and is a doctrine of demons.